Do you like GCC?

Do you like GCC?

Attached: 1528512859963.png (640x720, 486K)

Other urls found in this thread:

gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html
clang.llvm.org/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

dumb loliposter

I wanna fug chino

i want to nakadashi chino

yeah its pretty nice

I don't hate it.

Attached: 279435698.jpg (720x720, 85K)

yes. GCC is good for release binaries.

i want to release my binaries in chino's repository

yes
the future will be llvm+clang though

UGHH. Another anime thread to sage, hide, and report.

>cucked coc
yeah, no

@66292107
Anime website, (you).

Anyone that *does* find a problem with GCC I would recommend contributing to the project and talking to the devs on the mailing lists about any and all issues. There is no point for pointless bashing in the Free Software. Someone in the community had to get GCC and other analogous projects to where they are today, so someone (possibly you) will be the one to take it forward to fix issues that you might find.

Find out how here:
gcc.gnu.org/contribute.html

Yes, though I sometimes switch to clang if I don't immediately know/understand if a library bundled with gcc (like OpenMP) is GPL with the exception. I tend not to release my software under GPL.

>install clang
>gets built by gcc

Attached: smug manga.png (519x843, 418K)

Yes of course I like it OP, but why did you post my wife?

Attached: 1444512817580.png (545x626, 372K)

i like the plan 9 compiler

check'd

is it a good read if you want to learn about compilers?

definitely

see also lcc and pcc

gcc is pretty good

no
llvm+clang is the king
dumb anime poster

this

>UGHH

Attached: stop_posting.jpg (448x456, 60K)

You don't need to mention LLVM if you already say Clang. Hence LLVM does not support so many platforms as GCC does. You don't know what you are talking about and you type like a millennial brainlet. Fuck off.

Maybe on your system

>You don't need to mention LLVM if you already say Clang. Hence LLVM does not support so many platforms as GCC does.
Clang is just one llvm frontend

>t. mactoddler

Which makes mentioning LLVM unnecessary.

Nah, it makes mentioning clang unnecessary

Your next post will be "I was pretending to be retarded".
clang.llvm.org/

I know what clang is, I don't see why that link would make me backtrack on what I said.

Attached: brainlettttt.jpg (800x450, 41K)

What?

>Saying clang + llvm as if clang + other backends exist

Attached: 8nRqoXW.jpg.png (800x729, 48K)

notepad gcc gdb is my entire kit (sometimes valgrind), fight me plebs

My daughter is so cute.

My living sex toy is so cute.

>LLVM does not support so many platforms as GCC does.

No one cares about your obscure platform #182

People who use obscure platform #182 do

you can use llvm without clang
you can't use clang without llvm
retard

I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Clang, is in fact, LLVM/Clang, or as I've recently taken to calling it, LLVM plus Clang. Clang is not an operating system unto itself, but rather another free component of a fully functioning LLVM system made useful by the LLVM corelibs, shell utilities and vital system components comprising a full compiler as defined by POSIX.

Many computer users run a modified version of the LLVM system every day, without realizing it. Through a peculiar turn of events, the version of LLVM which is widely used today is often called "Clang", and many of its users are not aware that it is basically the LLVM system, developed by the LLVM Project.

There really is a Clang, and these people are using it, but it is just a part of the system they use. Clang is the compiler: the program in the system that compiles the source code to the machine instruction stream. The compiler is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete compiler infrastructure. Clang is normally used in combination with the LLVM system: the whole system is basically LLVM with Clang added, or LLVM/Clang. All the so-called "Clang" distributions are really distributions of LLVM/Clang.

>you can use llvm without clang
Which is exactly why clang isn't worth mentioning. It'd be like saying how great g++ or gfortran is when you're talking about GCC as a whole

>@
Twitter made you completely retarded

I'm a white man, I wrote my own fucking compiler, you're a nigger

Attached: cianigger.gif (300x424, 2.56M)

It's so the guy he was replying to doesn't get a (You). Some people actually care enough about that to go out of their ways to not (You) people. I assume it's only others who wank to (You)s who do this

It makes binaries that are significantly faster than the microsoft stuff, so yes.

its a pain in the ass to compile when im trying to build a musl-based LFS system

Attached: youburger.gif (480x336, 867K)

Attached: you.gif (480x238, 415K)

>not even SSA
SAD!

It's easily the best piece of software from GNU.

other frontends, like flang do exist, though

dumb brainlet posters

That'd be Emacs

Lurk moar.

and?

Not even close. And I say this as an emacs user.

Technically he's right to limit his statement to C++ since flang apparently doesn't get along well...

I'll take Emacs over GCC any day